Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Meta Fined $840 Million in Europe for Boosting Marketplace Unfairly

      by

      Meta said it would appeal the decision by the European Union, which said the company had abused its dominance in social networking to strengthen its shopping and classified ads service.​The European Union on Thursday fined Meta roughly $840 million for breaking competition laws with Facebook Marketplace, its shopping and classified ads platform, the latest action by regulators trying to limit the ability of tech giants to expand into new product areas.In issuing the 800 million euro fine, European regulators said Meta had given itself an unfair advantage over rival services by bundling Marketplace into Facebook’s wider social network, providing it with immediate access to millions of potential users. They added that Meta had abused its dominance in online advertising to impose unfair business terms on rival shopping services, allowing it to collect data that could be used to strengthen Marketplace.European regulators, led by Margrethe Vestager, the E.U. competition chief, have for years sought to limit the ability of tech companies to use their power in one area, like social networking, to gain a foothold in new markets such as shopping. Authorities in Europe have also accused Apple of using its dominance in smartphones to bolster music and payment services.In linking Marketplace to Facebook’s social network, the company gave itself “advantages that other online classified ads service providers could not match,” Ms. Vestager said in a statement. “This is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules. Meta must now stop this behavior.”The company said it would appeal the decision, setting up a legal battle that could drag out for years. Meta said Marketplace, introduced in 2016, was created in response to consumer demand and had not hindered competition from companies such as eBay and Vinted.On Marketplace, people buy, sell and trade items with others, including furniture, clothing, sports equipment, cars and home goods.“Facebook users can choose whether or not to engage with Marketplace, and many don’t,” the company said in a statement. “The reality is that people use Facebook Marketplace because they want to, not because they have to.”Meta has been a target of efforts on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean to crimp the power of the largest technology companies. Last year, the company was fined 1.2 billion euros, or about $1.26 billion, for violating regional data protection rules. In the United States, the company is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission for antitrust violations.Whether the United States and Europe will stay aligned on tech regulation with President-elect Donald J. Trump returning to office is an open question. Some of his supporters, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have raised concerns about the power of Silicon Valley firms like Meta and Google, while others have pushed for less regulation.The European Union started the Marketplace investigation in 2019. In 2023, the company reached a settlement with British regulators on a similar case, but was unable to find an agreement with E.U. authorities. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Unilever of Seeking to Muzzle Its Gaza Stance

      by

      The ice cream maker claimed in a lawsuit that its parent company tried to stop it from expressing support for Palestinian refugees.Ben & Jerry’s on Wednesday sued its parent company, Unilever, accusing the consumer goods giant of censorship and threats over the ice cream maker’s attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees. The move ratchets up a longstanding conflict between the two that has flared since the start of the war in Gaza.The lawsuit claims that Unilever recently tried to dismantle Ben & Jerry’s independent board and sought to muzzle it to prevent the company from calling for a cease-fire and safe passage for refugees, from supporting U.S. students protesting civilian deaths in Gaza, and from urging an end to U.S. military aid to Israel.“Unilever has silenced each of these efforts,” Ben & Jerry’s said in the lawsuit. The company, which is based in South Burlington, Vt., did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Unilever said that it would strongly defend itself against the accusations. “We reject the claims made by B&J’s social mission board,” it said in a statement.Hamas carried out a devastating attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year, and Israel responded by besieging Gaza, the territory that Hamas once controlled, with an offensive that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and created a humanitarian crisis.Unilever is one of a number of global multinationals like Starbucks that has been grappling with how to navigate business amid one of the most fraught issues in the world. The British conglomerate bought Ben & Jerry’s in 2000 and holds two of 11 seats on what is supposed to be an independent board.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Lahaina Fire Settlement is Caught up in Legal Fight With Insurers

      by

      Insurers that paid claims in Maui say a deal unfairly keeps them from recouping their own losses.The ashes of last summer’s devastating fire in Lahaina on Maui, which killed 102 people and destroyed the town, were still smoldering when talk turned to how fraught the rebuilding process would be.Fire victims would need help fast, and Hawaii officials pushed hard for a quick resolution to the avalanche of lawsuits filed against the entities that had caused the fire: the state’s electric utility, a school system and Maui County, among others.Just days shy of the fire’s one-year anniversary in August, a settlement was announced: Together, those responsible would pay $4 billion to settle more than 600 lawsuits; compensate over 10,000 homeowners, businesses and others; and — critically — keep key institutions, like the utility, solvent.But getting a deal done that quickly meant adopting an unorthodox approach to the insurance industry’s role in the settlement — one that the industry is challenging. Now, hopes for a timely payout are at the mercy of the courts.Typically, insurers pay claims and then sue whomever they blame for the damage — like the driver who might have caused a car accident — to recover some of what they paid. In the Lahaina settlement, the insurers are instead expected to seek repayment from the people and businesses they insured. A person who received a share of the $4 billion deal from a pain-and-suffering claim, for example, could have to pay a portion of that to the insurance company.The industry is balking at this idea, saying it upends a core piece of its business model. Insurers have turned to state and federal courts to try to block the deal, slowing it down and frustrating fire victims and Hawaii leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      California County to Pay $300,000 Over Butchering of Girl’s Goat

      by

      The girl and her family reached a settlement after accusing the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office of unlawfully seizing a pet goat that was sold and slaughtered.A California county’s sheriff’s office agreed to pay $300,000 after it seized a 9-year-old girl’s pet goat, which was later slaughtered, according to court documents made public Friday.Jessica Long, the girl’s mother, sued the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, the Shasta District Fair, which auctioned the goat, and some of its employees in 2022 for taking “a young girl’s beloved pet goat” to be sold and slaughtered, despite the family’s efforts to spare the animal, according to court records.Ms. Long bought the goat for her daughter, who called him Cedar or Cedes, so the girl could participate in a 4-H program, according to the family’s lawyer, Ryan Gordon.Ms. Long’s daughter, who is identified as E.L. in the lawsuit because she is a minor, initially raised the goat to be auctioned at the Shasta District Fair in Northern California.But as auction day approached, the girl, who had been feeding and walking with the goat on a leash everywhere, became attached to Cedar and did not want to sell him.The fair ignored the family’s pleas and sold Cedar for $902, of which the fair was owed $63 as part of the sale.The family offered to pay the fair the money it was owed, and as the dispute continued, offered to pay the full auction price. Fair officials refused to withdraw the sale, however, according to court documents.As the family attempted to keep Cedar, fair officials threatened criminal theft charges.During the dispute, Ms. Long took Cedar to a farm 200 miles away in Sonoma County to be kept safe, the lawsuit said.Two Shasta County sheriff’s deputies drove to the farm and seized the goat, though it remains unclear who got the deputies involved, Mr. Gordon said. Law enforcement did not have a warrant to search and seize Cedar from the farm, he added.Cedar was eventually slaughtered but where his remains ended up is still unknown, and the winning bidder never paid the $902, Mr. Gordon said.In settling with the girl and her family, Shasta County admitted no wrongdoing. The lawsuit against the Shasta District Fair and some of its workers remains pending. Representatives of Shasta County and the Shasta District Fair did not immediately return requests for comment.“They can never get justice for Cedar, he’s gone,” Mr. Gordon said. “But this is a good first step.”The money will be held in a trust until Ms. Long’s daughter, who is now 11, is a legal adult, he said.In a 2022 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Gordon, who is the co-director of Advancing Law for Animals, a nonprofit law firm specializing in complex cases of animal law, said the sheriff’s deputies were “not the judge” and had no right to deem who was Cedar’s rightful owner.When Ms. Long’s daughter learned of Cedar’s fate weeks after he was taken, she ran to her bed and cried under her covers, Ms. Long said. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      TGI Fridays Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

      by

      The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Saturday but said its restaurants would remain open while it works on a “restructuring process.”TGI Fridays Inc., the casual American dining chain that for more than half a century served customers happy-hour deals, hamburgers and comfort-food appetizers like mozzarella sticks and loaded potato skins, filed for bankruptcy protection on Saturday.The Dallas-based company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Texas to begin a “restructuring process” to ensure the “long-term viability of the brand,” according to a company statement.The move comes as the company struggles with financial challenges brought, in part, by the Covid-19 pandemic, Rohit Manocha, the executive chairman of TGI Fridays Inc., said in the statement.All 39 restaurants in the United States that the company owns and operates will remain open. Locations owned by 56 independent franchisees are not included in the bankruptcy filing, the company said.The company estimated both its assets and its liabilities are between $100 million and $500 million, according to court filings.TGI Fridays, which stands for Thank God It’s Friday, opened in 1965 in Manhattan. It became popular for creating an environment of flirtation at its happy hours, which catered to single people, and for its large portions.In 2007, the company changed its menu and began offering smaller portions for lower prices, a move that proved popular with customers.The pandemic, though, proved to be a challenge for restaurant chains like TGI Fridays that have large real estate footprints. The chain has more than 461 restaurants in 41 countries. Since the pandemic, customers’ appetites have shifted to faster, cheaper food.In October, Bloomberg reported that TGI Fridays Inc. was seeking financing to prepare for a potential bankruptcy filing.TGI Fridays, which dropped the apostrophe in its logo in 2013, is privately owned by TriArtisan Capital Advisors, a New York-based private equity firm. TriArtisan did not immediately respond on Saturday to an email seeking additional comment.The restaurant chain was a cultural touchstone of American casual dining for decades.Famous for its brightly colored beverages, TGI Fridays said its bartenders trained the actor Tom Cruise to make drinks for the 1988 film “Cocktail.” It also takes credit for having popularized the Long Island Iced Tea.Fridays, as the chain is sometimes called, is not the only casual sit-down restaurant chain that has struggled recently.Buca di Beppo, an Italian casual dining chain with more than 80 locations, many in California, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August. Red Lobster filed for bankruptcy in May and exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, The Associated Press reported. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Secret Files in Election Case Show How Judges Limited Trump’s Privilege

      by

      The partly unsealed rulings, orders and transcripts open a window on a momentous battle over grand jury testimony that played out in secret, creating important precedents about executive privilege.Court documents unsealed on Monday shed new light on a legal battle over which of former President Donald J. Trump’s White House aides had to testify before a grand jury in Washington that charged him with plotting to overturn the 2020 election, showing how judges carved out limits on executive privilege.The trove — including motions, judicial orders and transcripts of hearings in Federal District Court in Washington — did not reveal significant new details about Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power. But it did open a window on important questions of presidential power and revealed how judges grew frustrated with Mr. Trump’s longstanding strategy of seeking to delay accountability for his attempts to overturn his defeat to Joseph R. Biden Jr.The documents also created important — if not binding — precedents about the scope of executive privilege that could influence criminal investigations in which a current or former president instructs subordinates not to testify before a grand jury based on his constitutional authority to keep certain internal executive branch communications secret.Starting in the summer of 2022, and continuing with the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel later that year, the Justice Department undertook a wide-ranging and extraordinary effort to compel grand jury testimony from several close aides to Mr. Trump. Prosecutors believed the aides had critical information about the former president’s attempts to overturn the results of the election.The effort, which ended in the spring of the following year, was largely intended to obtain firsthand accounts from key figures who had used claims of executive privilege and other legal protections to avoid testifying to investigators on the House committee that examined the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the events leading up to it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Late Lawsuit Could Shape Political Ad Wars in Final Days of Campaign

      by

      House Democrats are suing to stop Republicans from using a legal loophole to bolster their Senate candidates.A legal battle is playing out in D.C. federal court that could determine how much money the Democratic and Republican Parties can pump into advertising in pivotal congressional races in the final week of the 2024 campaign and beyond.At issue is what Democrats say is a potentially illegal political advertising strategy that Republicans have used in recent weeks to try to overcome a significant fund-raising deficit in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.With less than two weeks until Election Day, House Democrats’ campaign arm has sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and are seeking a ruling to either bar the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.A hearing on the matter is set for Monday, and both parties expect a ruling as soon as Tuesday, either blocking or allowing the practice in the critical last stretch before Election Day.Here’s what to know:Democrats have been dominating Republicans in fund-raising in key Senate races.Continuing a recent trend, Democratic Senate candidates have been trouncing their Republican rivals in fund-raising battles in pivotal races across the country.In Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown has raised about four times as much money as his Republican challenger, Bernie Moreno. In Montana, Senator Jon Tester has raised about three times as much as Tim Sheehy. And in Arizona, Representative Ruben Gallego has raised more than twice as much as Kari Lake.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

      by

      As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek to develop legal arguments that determine which votes count, and therefore who emerges as the winner.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More